Nancy Pelosi: A Republican friend of mine told me that his party is “indifferent” to “really hungry children,” you know

posted at 12:41 pm on March 11, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

What does that even mean? That some shall-remain-unnamed Republican colleague literally told her, presumably when asked why he supported the one percent budget cut to the federal food stamp program recently passed in the farm bill or why he did not support extending unemployment benefits or something, that his entire party’s policy platform is based off of its collective and utter indifference to the plight of families in poverty? …Why do I feel skeptical? Via RCP:

I asked a Republican friend why his party remains so opposed to extending the vital lifelines for struggling families and really hungry children. This colleague’s response was telling in its blunt nature and it’s stunning in its honestly. What he said was to the Republican caucus, these people you are talking about are invisible, and the Republican caucus is indifferent to them. Invisible and indifferent. This is just plain wrong. That is not the leadership the American people deserve and it is up to us to demonstrate clearly how Democrats are different.

Ahh, yes — because with the Minority Leader, it’s never the case that Republicans have well-intentioned yet incorrect or impractical policy proposals. It’s always the case that Republicans’ common unifying characteristic is their sociopathic disdain for their fellow human beings, or else their innate aversion to things like “clean water and clean air” or whatever. I mean, I get it: Who wants to have an uncomfortably honest discussion about policy outcomes when you can just slander Republicans for their ostensibly intrinsic derangement? As Ed already noted earlier today, it’s been mighty useful for Democrats to aggressively pretend that Republicans are the craven hyper-partisans in this rodeo (while they themselves are of course paragons of centrism and human compassion), so remember: The only possible solution for lifting people out of poverty is further expanding the already unsustainable entitlement state, or else you’re an apathetic, uncompromising, black-hearted bottom-feeder.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

The people who believe her will continue to while the ones who dislike her politics will remain in denial. I am part of the crowd that believes republicans truly disdain the poor and struggling American. After all, the poor and struggling American is why they believe their taxes keep going up. So I understand why conservatives hate them. Especially the ones in urban areas.

One thing I don’t understand is why they can’t come out and say how they truly feel.

i_am_liberal on March 11, 2014 at 1:27 PM

I am part of the crowd that believes that democrats truly disdain the poor and struggling American. They will design policies to actually block real paths to independence for citizens in the name of “fairness”. They will throw the poorest Americans crumbs while using them for votes to increase their own power. They will convince the poor that they have no chance in life, that they are victims of an unfair and rigged system designed against them. That their only chance is to subvert themselves to the things that the government can buy with the money of others. For these democrats, never a dime of their own bank accounts ever go into their clever plans to help for everyone else. For this, they will actually have the guts to claim that they are the most compassionate and caring among us. These are people who will take their cut from charity, leaving the poor with 5 cents on the every buck spent on their programs. To top it off, they will project their own guilt and failures onto their opponents as in the clip above, inventing immaginary republican friends who tell her how they really think. This is some really messed up stuff.

I am only calling it how i see it bro. Fact is your party is the party of the rich and fortunate. Nothing about the republican party screams middle class or struggling American….

i_am_liberal on March 11, 2014 at 5:09 PM

You’re pretty badly out of date. The Democrats took over the mantle of “the party of the rich” some time ago. You carry on about who typically donates to Republicans/conservatives, while ignoring that the biggest contributors to Democrats/liberals are lawyers, unions, and government employees.

And if you fail to see how Republicans/conservatives stand for the poor and middle class, then it’s a failure of your understanding, not of their positions.

While Republicans often get the reputation for being “the party of the rich,” seven (7) of the top ten (10) richest members of Congress are Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP). So the next time some Liberal jackass claims that the Republicans are only out for the richest 1% we can remind them that 70% of the top ten wealthiest members of Congress are Democrats! So much for that statistic…

progressive/liberals just love to scream “Koch brothers!” and “Citizen’s United!” and yet in fact of the top all time political donors from 1989-2014, they rank all of 59th. And out of that list, you must get to 17th to find a “leans Republian.” Of the top 16, only 4 are “on the fence” approx equal donors, the rest all democrats. http://www.opensecrets.org/org…

Nancy Pelosi: A Republican friend of mine told me that his party is “indifferent” to “really hungry children,” you know

Pelosi continued: my friends in the media let Senator Reid get away with sh*t like this all the time….”Romney doesn’t pay taxes, blah, blah, blah”… if you don’t allow me the same leeway as Senator Reid, why, clearly you are waging a war on women!

I wonder if that Republican is the same one who told Harry Reid Romney hadn’t paid any taxes in 10 years? The Democrats must be really desperate to be trotting this stuff out now, with so long before the election. Maybe she thought that little line would help Alex Sink!!!!

I am only calling it how i see it bro. Fact is your party is the party of the rich and fortunate. Nothing about the republican party screams middle class or struggling American.
i_am_liberal on March 11, 2014 at 5:09 PM

So, on a time-equivalent basis, the two presidents who increased the household income share the most for the top 5% are both Democrats, with Republicans pulling up the rear in third, fourth, and fifth place. After four years, the three Republican presidents average only a 0.2% increase, compared to a 1.8% increase for the two Democrat presidents. After eight years, the two Republicans are up only 0.6% versus a 3.5% increase for the Democrat.

We see the same message in the share of household income for the highest quintile. Clinton is well out in front in terms of increasing the income share for the highest 20%. Reagan and Obama are in an effective dead heat after their first four years. After four years, the Republicans average a 0.7% increase; the Democrats are at +1.6%. After eight years, it is Republicans at +1.2% and the Democrat at +2.9%.

But the Democrats are the party of the middle class and the poor, aren’t they? Wrong again. The following plot shows the change in share of household income going to the third quintile (i.e., middle class) and the lowest 40% over each presidential term.

Clinton decreased (-1.0%) the share of household income going to the middle class more than Reagan (-0.8%), and far more than Bush 43 (effectively unchanged at -0.1%). After four years, Obama (-0.3%) has decreased the middle-class income share more than both Bush 41 (-0.2%) and Bush 43 (-0.1%). Four years into their terms, the Republicans average a much smaller decline in the middle-class income share (-0.3%) than the Democrats (-0.5%). After eight years the gap is even wider, with Republicans averaging -0.4% and Democrats at -1.0%.

In his first term, Obama has decreased the household income share going to the lowest 40% by 0.5%, the same decrease as Reagan after four years, and more than either Bush 41 (-0.2%) or Bush 43 (-0.4%). Clinton leads the way in this statistic, decreasing the income share going to the poorest members of society by 0.6% after four years in office. After eight years, the two Republicans average out to equal Clinton at a 0.7% reduction in the income share for the lowest 40%.

The fact is no party is a friend of the rich like the Democrats.

If you believe in income distribution, then believe this: the greatest friends in the last 30 years to the rich have been Bill Clinton and Barak Obama.

Nancy must be taking lessons from Harry Reid. If she is telling the truth (something I have come to believe is genetically impossible)she should name the person. But, like Reid and his “all horror stories about the healthcare plan are lies” and “Romney hasn’t paid his taxes”, I suspect that Nancy is making things up in the hope that no one focuses on discussing and asking questions about what she and her party are really doing. It is, I suspect, becoming a losing proposition.